##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5154

WP No. 2926 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2926 OF 2024 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

SRI MAHESHWARAPPA T

S/O THIMMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

WORKING AS MECHANIC GRADE 2

OFFICE OF THE L T RATING SUB DIVISION

MESCOM, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY)

AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY

O AND M ZONE, MESCOM

VIDHUTH BHAVAN, B H ROAD

Digitally signed by

MALATHI SHIVAMOGGA 577203.

CHALUVA IYENGAR

Location: HI GH

COURTOF 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY)

KARNATAKA

O AND M ZONE, MESCOM

VIDHUTH BHAVAN, B H ROAD

SHIVAMOGGA 577203.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY)

O AND M ZONE, MESCOM

SHIKARIPURA 577427

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MUHAMMAD SHAMIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5154

WP No. 2926 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 13.05.2022 MADE IN

NO.AAIM(VI)HIAAASA/KA-39/2096-113 VIDE ANNEXURE-A

PASSED BY THE R2 HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS

AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND ALSO

QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 04.11.2022 MADE IN

NO.MUIM(VI)/SHI.VA.KA/2022-23/3584-94 PASSED BY THE R1

APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ANNEXURE-A1) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated

13.05.2022 passed by respondent No.2, as at Annexure-A,

and the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the first

respondent–appellate authority, whereby the penalty

imposed was modified, as at Annexure-A1.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is

working as a Mechanic. While he was in service, a

departmental enquiry was initiated against him, and a

penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative

effect was imposed. Being aggrieved by the same, the

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5154

WP No. 2926 of 2024

HC-KAR

petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent–

appellate authority. The appellate authority modified the

punishment and reduced it to censure. Being still

aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, on 04.11.2020, the petitioner was on

leave. There is no material produced to show that the

petitioner had consumed alcohol on that day or that he

had taken photographs and forwarded the same on social

media.

(ii) Secondly, the photographs produced during the

enquiry have not been proved. The petitioner has

specifically denied the charges made against him. Even

the Enquiry Officer has given a clear finding that there is

no material to prove that the petitioner had consumed

alcohol or that he was riding a two-wheeler in violation of

traffic rules. In spite of this, the penalty imposed by the

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5154

WP No. 2926 of 2024

HC-KAR

authorities is contrary to the material available on record,

and the finding arrived at is without any evidence and is

perverse. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, a show-cause notice was issued to the

petitioner vide Annexure-D. In response to the said notice,

the petitioner submitted a reply. He has not denied the

photographs taken on 04.11.2020, nor has he denied his

presence in the said photographs. The Enquiry Officer,

after affording an opportunity to the parties, has given a

clear finding that the charges have been proved against

the petitioner.

(ii) Secondly, once the charges have been admitted

in the reply, the burden shifts on to the delinquent

employee to disprove the same. In support of this

contention, reliance is placed on the judg